Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 1

Hi all,

Haven't been looking for a while, but I see the anti-FWBO league have finally discovered this site and have been up to their tricks. I will be removing those links as and when they appear because I do not believe them to contain accurate or fair information. For which I will no doubt be judged to have been biased. But I have attempted in this article to give a balance, and to include links to independent assessments of the movement. These are from respected academics and Buddhist practitioners, whereas the a lot of the other links are anonymous, and contain much misinformation and things which cannot be verified or substantiated.

Perhaps there is a way to make space for the views of those who accuse the FWBO of being a cult, but it is not in links which are not commented on or put in context. I think the agenda of the people who have created those pages needs to be examined. I have for instance had a personal approach from one of those people seeking payment for the removal of one of the sites.

I will also change the link to the Guardian article back to the guardian - a. within the body of the text only Wiki links should appear (this is standard wikiquette), and b. the FWBO files is not the original source of the article and do not have copyright permission to reproduce it, or if they do they are not displaying such a message. mah&#257;b&#257;la 20:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about only wiki links being standard? Is there something in the MOS about that? -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 22:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re external links: You can check the policy on External_links. I think this has what you need keep them minimal, use Wiki links where possible. Re the Guardian article the style manual suggests that it would be permissable to link to the original. But that would require some contextualisation I think in order to maintain npov - for instance I would not like to see the article being linked to without the response which was published by the guardian a week later: the Guardian gave editorial space for the rebuttal and this is seldom acknowledged in any discussion of the article. mah&#257;b&#257;la 20:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I created a separate section to post links with view critical to FWBO.


 * a. could you sign your contributions wo we know who is saying what. Thanks.
 * b. all of the cult stuff is the work of one remarkable man, Mark Dunlop. Mark has devoted himself to slandering the FWBO for several years now and has extensive links with the cult-watch networks. Much of the information is grossly inaccurate and all of it simply rehashes the sad lies of one mentally disturbed person. One of the links you added does make a useful contribution, and though I largely disagree with the sentiment it seems only fair to include it. I think I have done justice to the anti view, and I have already commented that the FWBO files are an anonymous and largely inaccurate document. mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apology. I'm FWBOarticle. I have reinserted "Critical Views of the FWBO". You appear to be a member of FWBO so you have a vested interest to censor views critical to FWBO. I don't think you are the right person to dictate what "anti view" of FWBO ought to be. I'm quite sure this Mark Dunlop person would wish to rewrite the article itself or alternatively, start a separate entry titled "Criticism of FWBO" but that is not what I'm doing. At least FWBO appears unwilling or unable to sue the site for libel.

FWBOarticle here. I have discovered an another internet link. It apparently is an internet newsgroup discussion about an "open" letter published by WBO. Initial posting is done by said Mark Dunlop. Also here is an article by FWBO affiliated organisation discussing this letter so the letter is probably legit. I do not think one can dismiss accusation against FWBO and the founder as "sad lies of one mentally disturbed person". Oh, it appear that the writer of this entry is involved with this newsgroup discussion if I'm not mistaken. A kiwi with a rare name.

Sigh. Here we go again... my bias is obvious, what is yours? By the way I have not dismissed the so called accusartions against the FWBO out of hand, I have written an entire section on the criticisms of the FWBO and made links to the more balanced and reasonable outside views. It may well be worth adding links to Yashomitra's letter and the Leeds centre comment on it.

But wouldn't it be better to put the whole thing into some kind of context? Doesn't an encyclopedia require more than just linking to websites? If you're going to get involved in this project, which btw I think is highly meritorious, then do some work, do some analysis, put things into context. You suggest that I am biased, but then so are we all, and the Wikipedia will sort it self out in the long run. Anyone who choses to write start an article will usually be biased in some way - if only because they have chosen to study the subject for some reason. Now you have chosen to call yourself "FWBOarticle" in this forum, does that not indicate some bias?

The idea is to approach a neutral point of view, not to allow one or other to prevail, but to find a neutral stance. So far you are not really contributing to this. If you can't do any more than make links to the FWBO files, then you're just wasting everybody's time.

However, yes there is probably more that could be said about controversial aspects of the FWBO, just as there is much more that could be said about other aspects of the movement! But since you are interested in accusations I think we need to make a distinction between the various accuastions that are made.

Yashomitra accuses Sangharakshita and some of the Padmaloka team of inappropriate sexual behaviour. I have covered that - it is not at all clear what the truth is (and I have talked to many many people on both sides of the argument), so I leave the verdict open. Other members of the movement have been happy to speak, move privately, about their sexual contact with Sangharakshita and it's often the case that they enjoyed it very much, and that they feel they beenfitted from it. It does seem clear that Sangharakshita was illadvised to have sex with followers... that fact that he returned to celibacy some 20 years ago is often overlooked in this debate. I think it is fair to say that there was some real confusion about sex in the FWBO. In Croydon this confusion ended up with people being hurt, the mastermind behind that little episode was not Sangharakshita or any of the current leaders of the movement, it was an order member called Padmaraja, who has since resigned. A close reading of Yashomitra's letter shows that he consented to sex with Sangharakshita because he thought he stood to gain from it. I don't blame the guy, but it's clear that he had the option, one which many other people refused - although it may be appocryphal one man is said to have said "I'm prepared to bend over backwards for you, but not forwards!". So you see some analysis is required in this case. It is not a straight forward case, and I don't want to see us descend into tit for tat edits. If you have something to offer other than external links, then I will welcome the input.

Mark Dunlop is a different story altogether - he openly admits to needing psychiatric help for a start! What Mark accuses is not sexual misconduct, but something far more nasty, and in this he is a lone voice. Mark has suggested that Sangharakshita is a psychopath, has suggested that the FWBO exists only to groom sexual partners for Sangharakshita and other senior order members, and these are both patently untrue.

So yes I think it is fair to say that Sangharakshita's sexual behaviour was ethical questionable. I do not think it is fair to say that the FWBO is a cult, or even cult-like, although I acknowledge that this is a pov it is not one that stands up to scrutiny. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny because it all points back to Mark Dunlop - the cult watch sites regurgitate his stuff without any digestion, and not a single one of them has chosen to go and meet the FWBO to talk about it! Nor do they reply to emails requesting clarification or pointing our factual errors! I know I've tried.

And yes I have been involved over a number of years in disputes on the newsgroups. Apart from Mark I have yet to meet anyone in the ngs who has any personal experience of the FWBO (and that was now thirty long years ago!) but they also seem to simply regurgitate what Mark says or slag Sangharakshita off on the basis of having read a book or two. So if you are more qualified to write about the FWBO than me, then I'd be happy to read about your credentials! Just how much contact with the actual movement have you had, as opposed to say reading anonymous websites and Mark Dunlops vitriol? Any at all I wonder?

So I will once again remove that section. Write some text. External links should be few and far between according to the Wiki style guide. And since most of the links you are making are to anonymous, unattributed information I think I am quite justified in removing them.

BTW you can sign your posts by typing ~ which adds your pseudonym and the time and date. mah&#257;b&#257;la 10:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) ____________________________________________________

User:FWBOarticle I have already stated my objection to your deletion. "You appear to be a member of FWBO so you have a vested interest to censor views critical to FWBO. I don't think you are the right person to dictate what "anti view" of FWBO ought to be." The title of the section is "Critical Views of the FWBO". The links listed are exactly that.


 * My bias is clear, but we know nothing about yours! I'm not censoring critical views - such a claim is idiotic since I have written quite a lot about ciriticisms of the FWBO, and included links to well researched and independent articles. 81.187.213.119 12:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, hmmm, I'm not a buddhist, if that what you want to know. I picked FWBOarticle as longin name because I don't intend to get involved with English Wikepedia thing. English is not my native tounge. As of "criticism of the FWBO", it is more like "FWBO response to Criticisms of the FWBO" the rest of article being FWBO promotional piece.  In my view this is not the place to propagate FWBO.  That should be done by simply presenting external links to FWBO sites just as I presented links to critical to FWBO.  I don't intend to rewrite this entry in line of anti-FWBO or pro-FWBO.  But I would think that both side of views should be accessible to the readers of Wikepedia. FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks about ~. I appreciate it. Still not sure how that works though.


 * Just type four tildes (~) and Wiki inserts your name etc
 * Thanks FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:FWBOarticle I have added an extra link in "Critical Views of the FWBO". I would actually think that link is more appropriate to be included in your external links section.


 * yeah well I have explained to you that your external links are not in line with Wiki policy so I'm just going to keep deleting them. You cannot simply link to material that is a clear breach of copyright, nor to anonymous webpages. It's got to be quality info. Plus I've looked at those cult sites and all they do is repeat things said by Mark Dunlop - they have made absolutely no attempt to corroborate what they say. This is not the standard of information required by links in the Wiki. I've left the ones that I think reach that standard - two of them.

Please go and read the Wiki Style Guide! 81.187.213.119 12:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:FWBOarticle Hmmm, only possible copyright violation is on a single page of FWBOfiles. I did not link to Guardian article itself last time. I will check about this so I will put this on hold. The rest is going back. Denis Lingwood having sexual relationship to his youg followers over prolonged period of time is a public knowledge. Even you appear to admit it. One do not have to go to FWBOfiles for this. By any public standard, it is a clear violation of ethic. The fact that this organisation is listed as a cult in some anti-cult sites is an important information. "[T]he aim [of Wikepedia] is not to write articles from a single objective point of view — this is a common misunderstanding of the policy — but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." I have checked Wikepedia entry such as Soka Gakkai or Scientology. Listing anti sites in external link appear to be a standard procedure. Now, I'm quite sure member of SGI or Scientology made similar objection against these site as you are doing.
 * P.S. I'm not debating whether FWBO is a cult here, btw.


 * Hi FWBOarticle. So what are you doing? What is your purpose in adding those links? Do you think that the information in them is accurate for instance? Why do you think it is accurate? Personally I don't think the information is accurate, and so making an unadorned link to those sites is not a helpful thing. It is fair to say that some people claim the FWBO is a cult, but how to potray that information in a way that is npov? Why do they think that for instance? Is that a fair claim, or does that claim not really stand up to scrutiny? Because these sites are not simply 'critical' of Sangharakshita, not simply 'critical' of the FWBO. 'Critical' is far too weak a word for what they are: attacking with blind fury is hardly in the realm of "criticism" - hardly in line with the objectivity that you purport to represent. This isn't a reasoned and balanced critique that simply gives another point of view, these people are engaging in a concerted campaign to villify the FWBO. A suitable heading for the links you propose might be "links to websites which seek to denigrate, villify and abuse Sangharakshita and the FWBO - and anyone else who disagrees with them". Now that I would leave in place! mah&#257;b&#257;la 12:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah simply adding different POV from yours. I know all of these site is beyond libel. In case of FWBOfile, it even has legal notice. Also FWBO itself admit in A Comment on the Refutation to the Above Response that "The Refutation {in FWBOfiles} rightly argues that the FWBO cannot show the claims in the Files to be false."  Basically both FWBO and my links are POV. Whether I agree with the views expressed in my links are beside the point.  I'm repeating this again but the aim of this site "is not to write articles from a single objective point of view ... but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way."  I will also agree to change the heading of the section as you say. I don't think your description is in accordance with "attributed to their adherents in a neutral way" but never mind. It appear that now the issue is about contextualisation of the links rather than whether the links should be up there in the first place.  That is a progress IMO.  FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have added the name and the date of the guardian article, "the dark side of enlightenment". User:FWBOarticle

After reading Wikepedia's external link policy, I have decided to resubmit FWBO-Files. I can certainly unerstand that linking to a site such as Sharereactor or Supernova which has links to tons of pirated material would certainly damage the reputation of Wikepedia. However, I do not believe that linking to a site with only one possible copyright violation (a newspaper article) would damage Wikepedia's reputation or get Wikepedia in legal trouble. If such strict rule are to be enforced, it become impossible to make a link to a large site. On the other hand I will delete "Campus link to Buddhist groups shamed by 'sinister allegations'".User:FWBOarticle


 * Actually you seem to have missed Mahabala's point in adding these links, which is that without any kind of commentary on them they don't so much as present a point of view on the FWBO as mudslinging. I read that Ken Jones article and it's pretty obvious that he's making stuff up. Jones characterises the typical FWBO person as an "angry young man" which is not the case. Mostly they seem to be older men and women, more women than men as far as I can tell, and they don't seem that angry. Jones also harshly criticises the FWBO on it's "anti family stance" but he doesn't even attempt to put this in the context of the Buddhist teachings where celibacy is seen as the ideal! A third example is the way Jones characterises women in the FWBO. I understand that women have felt marginalised at times, but Sangharakshita was the first person to ordain women on an equal footing to men. It seems unfair to simply make a link to that article without any sort of comment - and I think this was Mahabala's point: that just making a bunch of external links doesn't add much, and the ones you are adding seem to confuse the issue. Much the same can be said of the other links. Can you not actually write something which evaluates the information? Nobody 12:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I don't think it is appropriate to "contextualise" such article in defence of FWBO. If you want I can easily counter your argument. "Angry Young Men" is description of attitude not demographic.  As of S being the first to do gender equal ordination, FWBO's ordination isn't ordination of monks/nuns so it is a pointless claim. FWBO's single sex activity or encouraging celibacy to non monks/nuns can be seen as "odd" if not "anti family". I understand you don't like this article but that is just your POV.
 * As of general anti cult sites, these organisation offer further information and help if you directly contact them. That is useful information in itself. I may agree to delete Scotish one only if you agree to leave Steven Alan Hassan and Cult Information Centre site. Oh, in Soka Gakkai entry, Alan Hassan is described as "controvercial". Now, this appear to be overall/average opinon of Alan Hassan therefore, I do not mind adding entry link to Steven Hassan for NPOV. I do not see this in case of Cult Information Centre so I would like to leave it as it is.
 * And "FWBO cult of not" appear to have been a quite popular topic. Just because you don't like to talk about it is no reason to censor it. It is up to the reader to decide. I can certainly agree to add [FWBO's Response to Criticism]. It is quite obvious that both FWBOFiles and exFWBO is beyone libel so it is matter of POV in the end.  As I quoted, the aim of this site "is not to write articles from a single objective point of view ... but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi FWBOArticle -- while you are doing the Research to add some proper criticisms of the FWBO to this article, could you start at page 1 of the FWBO files, the dedication: "Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to Terence Delamere, Matt Evans, and the nameless young man found dead in the Thames on New Years Day, 1967. Had they encountered the true teaching of Buddha, they might still be alive today. May their tragic and untimely deaths not have been in vain.  In memory of Maurice O'Connell Walshe, 1911 - 1998  -- Arthur Rimbaud"


 * Two questions for you -- who is Arthur Rimbaud, and why is he (after 38 years of research) unable to put a name to the "nameless young man"? -- Thanks.
 * I added ":" to the above comment. Sorry, I hope I'm not breaking any rule of Wikepedia by doing this.  Anyway, No, this is not the place to discuss what is the true teaching of Buddha.  I'm perfectly happy for Mahabala to present FWBO's doctrine/practice as long as it is not any implicit polemic against other schools.  What I object is Mahabala censoring view or information which he consider to be a threat to his organisation. And any criticism he tolorate seems to be acceptable only if it is "contexaualised" in defence of FWBO. If one "presume" that FWBO is not a cult as any FWBO members obviously do, then, any anti views are "unfair", "misinformation" or "villification". This is not a place to decide whether FWBO is a cult or not just as this isn't a place to decide what is the true teaching of Buddah. It is the readers of Wikepedia who will make such decison based on what they will read.FWBOarticle 05:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--- I found something rather sad. I'm sorry Mahaabaala. It is not really fair that I can find what you said outside of this site while you can't do likewise. I can tell you that I have so far never got into "FWBO cult of not" issue in internet if this is consloation. Anyway I found a newsgroup article written by ex-FWBO member called Ken in regard to the leak of Yashomitra's letter. Here. And your response is here.

So basically, FWBO deliberately lied (or fudged) in the response to the Guardian article willfully concealing about the fact that S's so called "sexual experimentation" went on for decades and probably involved dozens of young men and that other senior order members engaged in the same kind of behaviour. And you talked to these senior order members personally and you know a lot more than about S, Yashomitra and Mark Dunlop.And basically Yashomitra just like Mark Dunlop is no longer a member because he got nowhere even after he "came out" with his experience. Plus, you have been trashing Mark Dunlop for years before Yashomitra's letter made Mark Dunlop's account impossbile even for you to deny. And you still trash Mark Dunlop here when you know that the reason he needed psychiatric help is due to his experience with S, subsequent expulsion from FWBO and the continuing failure by FWBO to acknowledge the truth of his experience and suffering. :Anyway, do whatever you want for the main article. Just leave my external links collecton alone. FWBOarticle 11:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree. It would have been better for a more open response. But I also understand why the response was written that way: it's no fun being attacked in the media. Yes I do know a lot more about S and the others. Thanks for acknowledging that. mah&#257;b&#257;la 19:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. Both Mark and Yashomitra "published" their letters in Shabda. They were not supressed. Mark got nowhere because he went from being S's best friend, and sometime lover, to over night denouncing a predatory psychopath. Now I would find it hard to accept that someone I'd spent a lot of time with, even been a lover of, should suddenly go mad like that. Actually i have a similar experience, and I can quite understand the shock that Mark must have created with his raving. Madness is quite terrifying up close and personal. That Mark continued to hound former friends for many years did not help.
 * Yashomitra on the other hand was more measured and admitted, even if only tacitly that he consented to sex, and thought he stood to gain from it. Yashomitra got a lot of support, and encouragement, so far as I know. But yes in the end, after quite a lot of consultation and discussion he decided to leave the order. These are two very different stories. And two very different men. While I tend to agree that Yashomitra's letter lends some credence to Mark's story, I'm all too aware of the impossibility of him ever accepting any compromise.
 * Why would I deny anything? When have I ever denied something I knew to be true? Mark and I have sparred, and you would admit having read the exchanges, that he gave as good as he got.
 * Actually having had considerable psychiatric "help" over the years myself, I am in a very good position to doubt what Mark says - it sounds very much like his pshyche have just reinforced his delusion because it is very fashionable at present (everyone is the "victim" of sexual abuse these days!) In any case I have not always trashed Mark. Initially it was all out war, because I just thought he was lying. Later for a longish period I tried to reason with him. Later still I just felt sorry for him, and tried quite hard to move towards him. I've always said, and this is a matter of public record many times now, that I think it was wrong for S to have sex with his disciples and followers. But I've never accepted that it was *evil* which is what Mark would have us believe. Was S naive, yes. Was he foolish. Yes. But is he a mad sexual predator who cares nothing about people or the Dharma. No he certainly is not.
 * I have tried many times to acknowledge Mark's hurt. But he rejects anything other than a total acceptance of what he says. There is no middle ground for him. So having failed in that attempt I simply went back to stone walling and contradicting. I tried very hard to stay within ethical bounds, but sadly I often failed in this. Several times I apologised to him for things I had written. It's all their in Google groups.
 * For his part Mark would never acknowledge *my* experience. Not that it's so rosie, not at all, it's been quite painful at times, but I can honestly say that I have not experienced anyting like what he says. I know S a little, and have always thought him quite kind and friendly. I know many of his senior disciples well and they are unfailing kind, and have supported me through the most horrendous difficulties.
 * Your over simplification is quite typical of the sort of thing I have railed against for many years now on the internet. You have completely failed to capture any of the subtly and interplay of my relationship with Mark Dunlop. So who, I wonder, are you to preach to me about my interactions with Mark? What do you know?
 * And so we come back to my initial point. My first one of all which is that providing information in the Wikipedia is about writing. It's not about just adding a bunch of external links - links should support the text, they should be selective, relevant, accurate, attributed, legal. You want to represent some point of view, then do so. But so far you just look like another arsehole out to trash me, trash Sangharakshita, and trash the FWBO. But hey I try to be polite in Wiki-space. Why are you so reluctant to join in? Why insist on the links, but make no attempt to contribute something to the whole?
 * But I am glad to have finally seen a chink in the armour - as you say... progress at last. So why are you so attached to having those links there? You can dress it up in Wiki speak, but you'd be better to put your cards on the table so I can try to see where your coming

from. (And not just me, because I haven't deleted anything for a while and I keep seeing things popping into being and passing away again!)mah&#257;b&#257;la 19:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW Have you actually looked at those links I've made. Apart from Sally's research in NZ, there not a lot of support there. Also take a look again at the text, and tell me really if you you think I'me trying to censor anything?
 * FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)I have remerged my comments. I prefer to have the integrity of my comment intact. Unfortunately, your comments are no longer clear about which part of my comment it is refering to. Sorry about that.
 * Yes, I'm aware of those magazine, especially Journal of Buddhist Ethics. It apparently is a online only magazine which is trying to increase it's prestige.  It also appear to have quite favourable attitude to NRM.  I have done search of other buddhist NRM (FWBO, SGI, Risho Koseikai an so on) and almost all the comments are favourable.  I also suspect that that may be the reason why it failed to attract academic who specialise in Buddhist theology.
 * And about your offer for me to perticipate in contributing to the article. Firstly, my section is a contribution. There is no obligation for anyone to perticipate in other sections. Secondly, I understand that lot of past and present problems of FWBO are discussed within the organisation.  However I highly doubt that you are willing to acknowlege these problems in Wikepedia when even your own organisation is yet to come to term with it. Some of the bad things I read about FWBO is not just S and senior order menbers' sexual exploits.  What about S's name falsely translated as "Protector of Sangha", him pretending to be a monk in front of indians, hyping his orthodox buddhist training in the east when he didn't really get anywhere.  What about allegation about S's idea that homosexual relationship to be superior to hetorosexual one, or about alleged misoginy against female members, and all those polemic S and FWBO directed against other Buddhist groups (and Chritianity). And are you willing to discuss the ongoing failiure of FWBO's to publically condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit not to mention it's failure to name names. FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A compromise
Well it looks like someone doesn't like my compromise suggestion, even though you took it literally. Remember I said I'd be tempted. But at least you have a sense of humour, or I assume you do. Lets look for some way of meeting everyone's needs.


 * The Guardian article - "The Dark Side of Enlightenment", October 27, 1997

The article is now named and dated in the text, this link is not to the original and I'm unhappy about keeping it as a link. If people really want to look it up, they can.


 * FWBO-Files

This should have a comment to the effect that it is anonymous, contains much that is inaccurate and apocryphal to say the least - this need not be slanted to favour the FWBO at all, but should simply acknowledge the provinance of the informatino. I should also like to see it closely associated with the FWBO response - not that I put much store by it, but you are the one going one about representing point of view.
 * FWBO is beyone libel. Much of S's claim about his exploit in the East is "apocryphal" as well and "inaccurate" depending on your POV. As I said, it is your POV against their.  I have inserted "Anti FWBO site" as an description of the link which I would consider to be an accurate attribution of the nature of the site.  If you want FWBO's response, then I would suggest to include it in "FWBO Sites" where it is rightfully belong.

Amongst the many claims that are made in this regard are the number of young people who have committed suicide as a result of their association with the FWBO. Since "medical specialists" have apparently testified to this then lets know who they are. Can you see how this is not just another critique as I was trying to point out yesterday? This is something way beyond saying that Sangharakshita doesn't really teach Buddhism at all, to saying that the FWBO kills people. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that a claim like that could do with some substantial backing up before it was made publically. So lets see some sort of acknowledgement of the nature of this document - lets see some sort of analysis of the provinance, the veracity, of this document. Again this need not be a favourable interpretation of the FWBO, just a presentation of the facts.


 * FWBOarticleThe site state that "medical experts have stated that a number of suicides have occurred as a direct result of involvement with the FWBO and its teachings ?!" At least, it appeared to be so in case of Mathew as can be seen in the Guardian article. The site does not claim medical expert testifed that FWBO kills people. If the site is libel, FWBO can sue the site and shut it down.


 * ex-FWBO Part of ex-cult Resource Centre

Information on cult sites about the FWBO can be traced, I have done this, to Mark Dunlop. Mark has waged his campaign with some vigour, prompting the Guardian article for instance, and is widely networked with cult-watch organisations. These organisations tend to share information, and to accept without critique or any attempt to verify it, anything which is said about an organisation being a cult. They are often associated with fundamentalist Christian groups. So to me this "view point" is problematic. Without any comment on cult-watch organisations, on Mark Dunlop and his madness, and without any discussion of the veracity of the info, then this is just mud slinging. And posting it as a bare link is akin to vandalism. And fortunately it is very easy to deal revert vandalism...


 * FWBOarticleFirstly I do not mind adding "By Mark Dunlop" in this link if you can give me something to back it up. Secondly, you need show me if ex-cult Resource Centre is indeed a part of "Fundamental Christian groups". Anyway, if you can show me that this is indeed a chritian affliated organisation, I'm happy to add this information.   Information such as the failiure of FWBO to condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit with their young students or number of misrepresentation which FWBO made in the past do not need to come from a sigle source.  Lastly, are you willing to also add that Mark Dunlop's psychological problem come from his experience with S and FWBO. "By Mark Dunlop - Former member who has experienced sever psychological problem due to his experience with FWBO and it's founder".  Not only this looks bad on FWBO, I don't fancy going into too much detail just for the sake of detail.


 * MANY BODIES, ONE MIND: MOVEMENTS IN BRITISH BUDDHISM by Ken Jones in Buddhist Peace Fellowship

I've re-read this, and although Ken sounds like an arsehole who really doesn't know what he talking about, I am more inclined to agree that he is simply giving his opinion. He's wrong, about the FWBO, but there's no law against that.


 * Dangers in Devotion: Buddhist Cults and the Tasks of a Guru by John Crook in Western Chan Fellowship
 * Steven Alan Hassan's Freedom of Mind Centre

I haven't read this one for a while. I seem to remember it being another ill-informed attack - why don't these people just come along to a centre - god knows there's enough of them! Given that Sangharakshita is no longer the head of the movement, and the so-called "leaders" of the movement have given up most of the administrative posts they held, leaving the FWBO as a distributed, and headless network, I wonder how relevant this critique of Sangharakshita is. Could be of historical interest I suppose... so leave it in with some pointer back to the stuff on the devolution of "authority" in the FWBO - not that anyone in the movement actually acknowledges authority, the faithless bunch of hippies and renegades!


 * FWBOarticleFirstly, my POV is that current FWBO is not a full brown cult. However, the past FWBO can be regarded as one.  Misinformation (S's name, his status of being monk and extent of his training in the East), Rather dubious financial practice (member's dole, housing benefit and volunteer labour connected to it's busniess activities), and most members living in a commune.  But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation.


 * Cult Information Centre
 * Scottish Cult Information & Support

Just forget these ones. This is Mark Dunlop pure and simple. They haven't got a clue, thrive on mudraking and hearsay. Fuckem. Fucking Christian fundamentalists who hate anything that isn't their own brand of gospel. Sigh. Funny old world isn't it? :-)
 * I have deleted Scotish Cult Information & Support as the site doesn't appear to be stable. As of Cult Information Centre, (as I stated in the above) some of problems about FWBO no longer have to come from Mark Dunlop.  If CIC is chritian affiliated, I will mention it. Something like "Chritian affiliated Anti cult site".

So that's my compromise position. Add these links, with some commentary in your own words to show that you understand what you're talking about, and I'll stop deleting the links. Although I can't promise that no one else will do so. mah&#257;b&#257;la 19:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * FWBOarticleIf you want to see an example of New Religious Movement which is slightly ahead of FWBO in transforming itself, checke Hare Krishna (ISKCON). When the sexual abuse scandal hit the organisation, it took active step to seek out the victims even go as far as placing ad in the newspapers.  It also aligne it's religious practice strictly to Vaishnava lineage.  My indian friend visited one of the main London temple.  What suprise him the most was that majority of lays attending the temple were Asian(i.e. Indian) British. Oh, I made alternations in "Sangha" entry.  you might want to check it out.

I've pruned the external links as many linked to the same information and some just appeared to be links to commercial sites. You might want to look at other controversial religious articles such as Scientology to see their linking practice. My perspective is that this article needs a lot of work. Secretlondon 01:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why you deleted FWBOFiles. Also, FWBO people are not as "enthusiastic" as people who support Scietology. There is no requirement to follow example in Scientology which I would consider it to be very restrictive example.  In Soka Gakkai entry for example, Steve Hassan's site is listed.  I also consider Cult Information Centre to be more important than Hassan's site as FWBO is primarly British based organisation.  CIC provide further information upon request.  There is no requirement that the site have to be internet based information sounce.  You may suggest alternative title to "Views Critical To FWBO". FWBOarticle 04:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We also should do something about the size of this article. My suggestion is to edit/delet any discussion which primary concerned with whether any of my links are unfair to FWBO. There is no point in having pointless/endless POV debate about whether FWBO is a cult like organisation. If everyone agree, I will start deleting mine. FWBOarticle 04:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Progress
Let me just repost a couple of your comments here, because I do believe we are getting somewhere. This is clearly not just another view, this is your view. And yes actually I do believe that this discussion is relevant!

And about your offer for me to perticipate in contributing to the article. Firstly, my section is a contribution. There is no obligation for anyone to perticipate in other sections. Secondly, I understand that lot of past and present problems of FWBO are discussed within the organisation. However I highly doubt that you are willing to acknowlege these problems in Wikepedia when even your own organisation is yet to come to term with it. Some of the bad things I read about FWBO is not just S and senior order menbers' sexual exploits. What about S's name falsely translated as "Protector of Sangha", him pretending to be a monk in front of indians, hyping his orthodox buddhist training in the east when he didn't really get anywhere. What about allegation about S's idea that homosexual relationship to be superior to hetorosexual one, or about alleged misoginy against female members, and all those polemic S and FWBO directed against other Buddhist groups (and Chritianity). And are you willing to discuss the ongoing failiure of FWBO's to publically condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit not to mention it's failure to name names. FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are quite right about many of these things. S's name I think is a very minor point. I think it can be taken to mean "protector of the Sangha", but so far as I'm aware no one has ever insisted on that, and it's primary meaning is "protected *by* the Sangha". But these compound Sanskrit names are open to interpretation. S is a poet, so expect a little poetry from time to time.

As for S's retaining his identity as a monk in India, yep that is a problematic issue. It was a deliberate deception. I think it was plain wrong to do so, but then again I do have some sympathy with why he might have chosen such a deception. Anything I say is going to sound like a rationalisation I suppose.

The homo/hetero thing is a bit of a non issue. Actually S says that the highest form of sexuality is celebacy. I'm not even sure it was him that suggested that homo was superior, although there were a number of people who advanced the idea. In any case anyone making such a clain these days would be laughed of the stage. There are a lot of gay men in the FWBO - traditional Buddhism is a bit anti, viz the Dalai Lama's comments a few years back. And yep there was some mysogeny as well. Lots of women felt marginalised, some still do, although record numbers are joining the order at present, so something must be going right.

I don't think anyone is willing to "denounce" Sangharakshita because they don't see him as having acted in a way that requires such a drastic step. Most of the people I know have an abiding gratitude to the old man. It's not a black and white issue, and I can see that you might see it as black. I don't necessarily see it as white, but against black I suppose I look pretty pale.

So yes there are problems. But these are things that can be addressed in the article. Gotta dash at the mo, but will be back. I think there's another paragraph in what you wrote yesterday which is the germ of a new addition to the article - after that it will make more sense to link to a couple of cult-watch sites. Regards mah&#257;b&#257;la 08:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, firstly, I'm not interested in debating these issue. Almost everything which can be said are in Newsgroup. And I don't really expect FWBO to be capable to condem S or name names of senior members. Just telling you that the public may have different POV from you.  And your article is likely to alarm people about FWBO than promote it because your attitude toward these issues is apparent in the article.  Anyone with access to an internet (i.e. people who read Wikipedia) can find FWBOfile whether it is up here or not. FWBOarticle 09:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)